| That Guy said: you bring up an interesting idea.
Some games boast something like 80 hours of gameplay. Of course, that would totally appeal to a gamer or whatever.
But to a "normal" working stiff that already works 40 hours a week and is "casual" gamer, The thought of devoting 80 hours to a single game doesn't sound too appealing. He simply doesn't want to invest that much time! |
Haha, I guess that takes Tetris out, that game has about 120 hours of gameplay (if you never have to start over) before your brain melts out your ears.
But actually, not to contradict what you said, but I'm currently in school AND work a part time job. I get very few free hours, but fortunatly I dont have any other form of a life! 
So a game with 60+ hours for it is always great. Like Zelda, I'm getting lots of hours on it and am playing it every chance I get (unless I am on here posting). I love long games, I dont care if the game has poor replay value as long as it has AT LEAST 40 hours of gameplay. For me hours of gameplay outweighs hours of replay value. Take GTA:SA for example. That game was seemingly huge, but in the end I beat it in under 20 hours. Thats pathetic, I guarantee you that I have not replayed it (by just effing around and such) on it for more than 10 hours (and most likly only 5). On the other hand it took me over 60 hours on FFIII to beat just the first boss, then another 20 to train up and beat the bonus boss. Is San Andreas a better game than FFIII? Most would say definatly not, but most would also say a game with over 60 hours of gameplay that is WORTH PLAYING(replay value aside) is easily better than a game with only 20 hours of worthwhile gameplay with 10 hours of replay value. Which is better? You decide.
Wow, that was really off topic. Sorry.
A delayed game is good someday, a bad game is bad forever.
